Let me cut to the end right away: Get Out is a terrific film. It is very scary, extremely funny, and poignant in ways that will make most viewers feel awkward. Jordan Peele (half of Key & Peele) has shown that he is a hilarious writer and performer and that he can deliver real pathos on screen. Behind the camera, here in his first feature film, he is incredibly assured. His confidence is evident from the first scene of the film. The story, also written by Peele, is both a classic horror film set up and a smart rumination on race.

Daniel Kaluuya (terrific here) plays Chris, a young man on his way to meet his girlfriend's parents for the first time. He asks Rose, played with spry energy by Allison Williams, if she has told her parents that he is black - she has not. Immediately, the audience can sense the anxiety that Chris is subjecting himself to by driving into the country to meet his girlfriend's white-on-white parents and their rich, white friends. In every scene, Chris (and we, the audience) are acutely aware of his race and the family's race and the gulfs that divide them.

Peele uses these scenes to build character for Chris as he is consistently weirded out but keeps pushing through and with Rose as she seems so oblivious to his unease. He also uses these scenes to ratchet up the tension and earn some genuine scares. All of this builds to a classic, 1970s-vibe third act full of gonzo horror tropes and jump scares.

LilRel Howery plays Chris' best friend Rod, a TSA agent with a sixth sense for racial shenanigans to much hilarity. Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener slink into their roles as Rose's parents, clearly relishing the opportunity.

With Get Out, Peele has delivered a funny, scary film worth seeing and worth talking about.

Marvel's strangest, loosest, and weirdest film to date, Dr. Strange, has arrived in time to reinvigorate the "Marvel Cinematic Universe." While the character of Dr. Strange has been around since 1963, there seem to be far fewer fanboys to serve with this picture. This is truly a one-and-done type of comic book movie requiring nearly zero familiarity with the minutia of the comic books. For a casual filmgoer looking for spectacle, Marvel has really delivered.

Benedict Cumberbatch adopts a somewhat-odd American accent to play Dr. Stephen Strange, a brilliant-yet-prickly neurosurgeon whose hands are severely damaged following a car accident. Strange alienates the only person who can stand him and squanders his fortune looking for a medical solution to save his battered hands and to allow him to return to life as he knew it. In desperation, Strange (a logical, non-believer) travels to Nepal looking for a sacred temple which may hold the key to helping him heal.

Instead of medical salvation, he finds there a group of mystical monk-like warriors trained in magic who can access and harness an "infinite multiverse." He travels through blacklight posters found on 1970s college dorm walls and through M.C. Escher-like kaleidoscope worlds of fantasy. The visuals are stunning and there is just enough malarkey and gobbledegook to keep it all humming along quickly. Don't think about it too much, just enjoy it. Cumberbatch goes along for the ride and injects his wit and sarcasm in equal measure to keep the ride from becoming a drag.

The villain, played with very cool and moody eye make up by Mads Mikkelsen won't be a fan favorite and his plan, to allow the earth to be engulfed by a universe destroying dark force, is both forgettable and terrifically generic. But Mikkelsen does his best to sell it. With what he was given, he tries. Certainly he succeeds where the villains from Thor: The Dark World or Iron Man 2 or most other Marvel entries have failed. Tilda Swinton (the center of this film's white washing concerns) imbues her character, The Ancient One, with the right amount of wisdom and spry humor.

The third act is one of the most successful of any Marvel movie. It avoids the "too muchery" that has cursed most of the series. The action is intense and satisfying, the music adds to the picture (a rarity for Marvel), and the tool which Strange uses to destroy the galactic threat is hilarious and one that we all can harness at will. The obligatory (2!) post-credit scenes hint at Dr. Strange's involvement in the larger Marvel film franchise. On its own this film is fun, thrilling, and brimming with spectacular imagery. Once we take Strange and graft him into an Iron Man movie, I have doubts about whether that will work as well. Check this solo picture out while you can. See it on a big screen with great sound.

What works:

The visuals and action. Trippy, like Dali channeling the Matrix.

The humor.

The lack of connectivity to other Marvel movies.

What doesn't:

Cumberbatch's accent.

The villain, despite Mikkelsen's admirable efforts.

Brass Tacks:

Worth your time. Grab some munchies, hit a bean bag chair, and drift off into the multiverse. A-

Wait, wait - before you rush out to Hallmark for the card you forgot to get your mom, or race to see if ANY restaurant has brunch reservations available, check out this helpful list from your friends at Movie Outsiders. If you were thinking you could sneak by with a "Mom's night off" coupon good for a frozen pizza and a movie night - be sure to read through this list of films to avoid. Do not, under any circumstances, choose one of these to enjoy with Mom on her special day (or ever, really).

Fifty Shades of Grey

Mom may have even heard of this one! Didn't her book club discuss this book a few years ago? Yes. Yes they did. And you would have died had you been in on the discussion. Bondage. Domination. Dakota Johnson "in the flesh." Probably not a great pick to enjoy with Dear Old Mom.

The Wolf of Wall Street

Seems OK, right? Directed by Scorsese, nominated for a bunch of Oscars, starring that hunk Leonardo DiCaprio - should be right up Mom's alley, right? Wrong. More swear words than non-swear words, a fully-nude Margot Robbie, more drugs than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - oh, and an ORGY on a plane.

The Overnight

This is the face you would make while watching this with your mother.

More than one prosthetic penis being waved and waggled, awkward skinny-dipping nudity, and a scene where one woman takes another to a massage parlor so she can watch the first woman give a hand job to a total stranger through a peephole. All while children are sleeping upstairs. Not best choice.

Eyes Wide Shut

Oh, Mom's a bit of a cinephile but never caught Kubrick's swan song? Best leave it that way. Seeing Nicole Kidman on the toilet or the strange, organ-music-scored orgy, or Tom Cruise examining a woman's breasts is not optimal with Mom to your left or right.

Magic Mike

Not terrifically graphic but absolutely out of comfortable bounds to be watching with your mother. If you look over and see her getting into it things will never be the same for you. Never.

American Pie

So, the odds of popping this one in with your mother are hopefully low. Keep it that way. Unless you need to revisit any painful and awkward childhood memories about your teenage years and how you spent much of your time. No thanks. Pass.

There are dozens and dozens of other movies that should be avoided with Mom. Such as:

Trainwreck

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

There's Something About Mary

Basic Instinct

Do yourself a favor and suffer through My Big Fat Greek Wedding one more time, ok?

Before reading this review, ask yourself: Have I seen all of the other Marvel films? Am I confident that I remember who Hank Pym is? Or Brock Rumlow? Or do I remember what happened in Avengers: Age of Ultron (i.e. Avengers 2, or the "The Avengers Film Which Shall Not Be Named or Remembered" - our review here)? Am I interested in sticking with the Marvel Cinematic Universe for the next several pictures featuring Black Panther, the Avengers, Ant-Man and The Wasp, or Sony's Spider-Man reboot? If the answers to any of those questions was "no," you are likely to struggle with Captain America: Civil War. There is a lot to like about the movie, but to casual viewers or newer fans this one may be a confusing, bloated mess.

Ok, so actually it will feel bloated to everyone. This movie is huge. And, to be fair, it is much closer to being Avengers Part Three than to Captain America Part Three. Captain America provides some of the drive for the story but the whole team, and then some, is on display in this nearly two and a half hour picture.

The story is straight-forward: the Avengers, after their exploits in the last several movies in which many innocent people have been killed, are asked to sign documents stating that they will no longer remain independent heroes. They will, instead, report to the United Nations and be sent to respond to situations as the council sees fit. Iron Man, overcome with guilt and after losing his girlfriend, thinks this is a sound idea. Captain America, who found out that his bosses at S.H.I.E.L.D. were actually Hydra terrorists in his last movie, smells a rat. The two divvy up the rest of their "enhanced" friends (remember, Fox owns the rights to the word "mutant" for the X-Men franchise) to take sides and end up walloping each other.

Let's focus on what went well. The action, especially fights featuring Chris Evans' Captain America or Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier, is intense. The up-close, hand-to-hand fighting recalls some of the better Bourne films ramped up to eleven. Without lasers or a magical hammer to swat foes away like flies, these two super soldiers need to dish out knuckle sandwiches left and right and they make any object nearby a dangerous weapon. In the scenes where these two are fighting either each other or in close quarters with others, this movie kicks serious ass. Also, Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther and his portrayal of Prince-turned-King T'Challa are more than a glorified cameo or commercial for his 2018 solo film. He delivers a nuanced performance and his fighting style, again close up and personal, delivers action.

I will also credit the filmmakers for combining so many styles and characters. They took an extremely serious picture filled with major, life and death ideas and political stances, and somehow found room for Paul Rudd's Ant-Man who starred in Marvel's funniest and lightest movie. On the other hand, the inclusion of Spider-Man in order to establish him and to set up Sony's reboot, is a blatant tack-on/corporate synergy-directed move (even though Spider-Man is handled fairly well here).

The biggest problem on display with this picture is one that Marvel has faced for several years: The Villain Problem. Other than Tom Hiddleston's Loki (the villain in Thor and Marvel'sThe Avengers), they cannot seem to flesh out a compelling villain. This movie drives that point home by making the main villain such a wuss that his big plan is to get the Avengers to fight themselves. They do, by the way, several times and to great CGI effect. But when the good guys are fighting the good guys, the stakes are never very high. Marvel would never let Captain America kill Iron Man or have The Scarlet Witch decapitate Black Widow. As an audience member, you know that they'll kiss and make up in order to save the world in the next picture. In fact, the villain problem is so severe here that Rumlow/Crossbones (Frank Grillo, so tough in the Winter Soldier) commits suicide in the first ten minutes and the main villain ALSO attempts suicide before the film is done. Even they don't think they're doing a very good job as villains.

Honestly - this is the villain. I mean...

Characters in this film make wild leaps in logic, show up where they couldn't possibly know to show up (and do so in record time), they issue "shoot to kill" orders based upon a single grainy photograph, and vow murderous/vigilante revenge while at the summit designed to get the Avengers to allow themselves to be overseen by the U.N. (Does no one grasp that a character on the anti-Avengers-vigilante side IS HIMSELF a vigilante? Actually, there's never a scene of the U.N. asking team Iron Man to do anything at all so they're actually all vigilantes the whole time. Ugh.)

Chris Evans' Steve Rogers grounds the argument and his confliction over splitting the team. And his chemistry with Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, and Scarlett Johansson is impressive. The relationships between those characters feel fleshed out and natural allowing for both genuine humor and real warmth. Most other characters, specifically Paul Bettany's Vision, are a different story. Why does Vision care? And why does anyone care that Vision has signed the document allowing the Avengers to have government oversight. Vision, as you will no doubt recall from Avengers: Age of Ultron, is a super-powered, computerized artificial intelligence which has been grafted into a vibranium body by a mystical and magical "infinity stone" which is embedded in his head (got all that?). It's like your phone's Siri come to life by magic and we are supposed to care that he has signed a legal document. He also dresses like a husband from Desperate Housewives Season One. Also, the events in Sokovia (forever pronounced and thought of as "SUCK-ovia") from Avengers: Age of Ultron drive too much of this story. That film was a dud and the whole Sokovia plotline so bad that it actively detracts from this picture to have to reference it so much.

What works:

The action.

Chris Evans and the chemistry between him and his co-stars.

The fight scenes between the heroes, while ultimately harmless, are done well and provide a cathartic thrill.

The humor is light and there's just enough of it to prevent the film from becoming bogged down into Batman Vs Superman territory.

What doesn't:

The villain problem.

The reliance on "SUCK-ovia"

General bloating and swelling

Brass Tacks: It's a definite improvement over Avengers: Age of Ultron but not as strong as Captain America: Winter Soldier. Cap deserved better - and so do we. B+

Seriously, look at Vision. Take him seriously dressed like that. Why????

The Academy Awards are almost here - they are just a few days away. Would you say that you feel prepared?

While your favorite celebrities are enduring sleepless nights (all the while being treated like Kings and Queens all day and having gifts bestowed upon them whilst juggling multiple job offers at insane pay rates), you have the stress of your local office Oscar pool to contend with. What are you going to do? The Movie Outsiders and the Spoiler Alert Podcast are here to help.

Throughout 2015, the Spoiler Alert Podcast featured episodes highlighting all eight Best Picture nominees. The last film to be discussed, Brooklyn, will be featured as Episode 099 and released next week. In the meantime, be sure to check out these past episodes to bone up for your Oscar pools, snooty film fanatic friends, or just to have fun listening to two idiots talk about movies! Enjoy.

File this story under "Ideas, Worst" or "Sh*t I Hope Never Happens." There is actually a group of people who think it is a wise investment of time, money, effort, and talent to remake the film Memento. Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Insomnia) wrote and directed Memento in 2000. The film helped Nolan break onto the scene, showcased a great Guy Pearce performance (as well as Joe Pantaliano!), and was nominated for two Academy Awards. Why is anyone even thinking of remaking this movie?!

Memento was a small film. Relatively quiet, the piece is constructed (edited) around the unreliable memory of its protagonist. The performances are interesting and Guy Pearce's Leonard is truly a tragic character. What is this movie missing? Car chases? Gratuitous sex or violence? A bitchin' soundtrack? Honestly, I do not understand why anyone would look at this film and think "huh, I bet I could do that better."

By contrast, Hollywood and aspiring filmmakers the world round churn out dozens of crappy films each year - several of them with a kernel of decent idea in there. Some of these films deserve to be remade, to have a do-over. Some of them had a chance and started out well and then turned to crap. They just didn't make the grade. Memento is not on that list. For the record, neither is The Fugitive, or Big Trouble in Little Chinabut both are scheduled to be remade.

If anyone is so anxious to do a remake, how about taking another shot at terrible movies such as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Van Helsing? Both of these are actually in the pipeline to be remade and, I think, they prove the point. The original films had decent inspiration, starred talented people, and had millions of dollars spent making and marketing them. And they both sucked. Hard. So, if the foundation is sound, why not try again? But taking a successful piece of cinema like Memento and needlessly wasting money trying to reproduce it is just a colossal waste.

For many people, that's a personal question. It depends on when you saw your first film in the series (Spectre is the 24th official entry into the series - Hollywood's longest and oldest film franchise), or which actor played 007. It depends on your taste:

Do you like Bond bad-ass and brutal or witty and winking?

What do you want out of your villains - megalomania or revenge?

How do you take your henchmen?

Are you pro-gadget or anti-gadget?

All of these questions are a matter of taste and all will influence how you respond to Sam Mendes' latest, longest, and seriously action-packed entry into the granddaddy of all film series. For most people, there are some essential elements to a "classic" Bond film and Spectre boasts them all: amazing action set pieces, great villains, beautiful women, gadgets, martinis ordered 'shaken, not stirred,' tuxedos, and incredible locations from around the globe. Rest assured, those interested in seeing James Bond travel the world, fight bad guys, and get the girl - you're in for a treat.

For long-time fans, Spectre contains a number of references to classic Bond films without being too on-the-nose about it. A cold-open helicopter scene evokes For Your Eyes Only, a parade in Mexico City on Dia De Los Muertos hearkens back to Live and Let Die. Bond has a knock-down, drag-out fight on a beautiful, old train a la From Russia With Love and even wears the same tuxedo he sported in Goldfinger. I am sure there are several allusions to classic Bond films that I missed and will pick up upon repeated viewings. All of this is candy for Bond fans.

Unfortunately, what Spectre also has is some of the Daniel Craig-era baggage: endless talk about the state of global intelligence gathering, a subplot requiring MI-6 to prove the value of the double-O program (didn't we JUST do that in Skyfall?!), Bond "going rogue" (Craig has done it in four out four films), and a need for unnecessary plot twists and networked relationships. In trying to force Craig's outings into a shared "cinematic universe" like the Marvel films, the producers have backed themselves into a corner. Bond cannot simply have an adventure, he cannot simply save the day or defeat a threat - it all needs to mean something. It all needs to be interwoven. And Spectre is a bit weaker for it.

While boasting some of the best action set pieces I have ever seen in a Bond film, the movie feels forced at times. Mendes stretches the film out. Don't misunderstand me - there are long, slow, quiet stretches - and they work. Mendes allows the film to take a stately pace, and I loved those scenes. The absolutely gorgeous cinematography of Hoyte Van Hoytema (Interstellar, Her) takes your breath away during these scenes and gives Spectre the title of best-looking Bond film, for sure. The scenes where Mendes loses things is in the forced web of connecting not only Craig's previous films together but in binding them to the broader and five-decades-long franchise history. These efforts only make the film feel long, forced, and a bit Hollywood-by-the-numbers. I wish Mendes and company had been more brutal in their editing and left some of these allusions to the audience's imagination.

I am one of those people who will be debating the merits and follies of Spectre for years to come, so allow me to close with this: dollar-for-dollar, pound-for-pound, Spectre positions itself in the top echelon of the Bond film series. While not at the top of the list, it is a more-than-solid outing in a long lineup of impressive action films.

What Works:

Craig - he still kicks ass and has allowed Bond to find a slightly more playful tone. He's not all doom and gloom like Quantum of Solace

Mad Max: Fury Road is one of the most gonzo, go-for-broke, all-hell-breaks-loose action films I have ever seen. And I have seen a few. This film, from George Miller who created Mad Max and the world he survives in more than 30 years ago, is as fresh, raw, real, and gutsy as any action film produced in the last several years.

In Fury Road, Miller produces a world so complete that Wes Anderson is jealous. In fact, this movie is like Wes Anderson and Terry Gilliam fell in love on the set of David Lynch's Dune, had a baby, peed on it, and left it to be raised by a pack of feral dogs who loved the chase scene from The Blues Brothers a little too much. From the costumes to the unbelievable vehicles to the practical stunts, this movie delivers.

The movie shoves us into this world with no preamble or explanation. What we need to know we can figure out as we race along. Immortan Joe, the vilainous warlord, is both pure evil and utterly disgusting. Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, is damaged goods but also more balls than another character in the movie. She risks her life to save Joe's captive "birthing wives," casting her lot with theirs as they race to a long-unseen "green land." Tom Hardy's Max is more gutteral than Mel Gibson's version. Less soulful, more empty. Perhaps that is an evolution as Max has been solo for far too long. He has no one to trust, no one to talk to, no one to care about. He is as much of an outsider as one can get and he is unapologetic about his desire to stay that way.

The plot of the film is thin - a here to there and back chase scene. But the visual punch and artistry on display throughout the film is truly impressive. Character design, make up, production design, editing, practical visual effects, and music are all top notch. As Joe and his unholy entourage chase Furiosa and Max across an open desert in their death machines, Joe has the foresight to also bring a truck laden with enormous speakers and a heavy metal guitarist dangling from chains. A great laugh in the film comes when the guitarist, who has been sleeping, is awoken and immediately begins shredding. This is that kind of movie.

Furiosa owns the movie. Not only due to her total bad-assery, but because as a character she has a future. She wants for something. She has plans or hopes or dreams. She can imagine a life with her in it and wants to get to that place. Max, on the other hand, is totally empty. He is merely motion or reflex. He reacts and responds. He knows he doesn't want to die and doesn't want to be a living blood IV drip for one of Joe's "Kill Boys," but he definitely doesn't have anything to live for. He is just passing through.

I already look forward to the next time he passes through - and I hope that Furiosa comes along for the ride.

I am a proud comic fan. I enjoy comics and I enjoy comic book movies. I love a lot of things about the Marvel "cinematic universe." I have followed the development of the latest sure-thing blockbuster Avengers: Age of Ultron with rabid interest alongside millions of other fans. And there are things to love about the movie. But, at the same time, enough is enough.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (how do we shorten that title? A:AoU? That is somehow worse than LOTR:ROTK, which, if you know what movie that is you are A: a geek and B: agree with me) suffers from the Marvel cinematic universe sickness of TOO MUCHERY. Too much. Of everything. This movie, while boasting some very fun moments, some cool character beats, and several really good lines, makes me whistful for the early days of Marvel. The days when they honestly weren't sure they were going to pull this whole thing off and they had to rely on more than just momentum, total brand awareness, and good marketing. The original Iron Man had Tony Stark fight one guy at the end - and it was a decent fight! The Incredible Hulk boasted a single enemy which the big, green guy had to thrown down against to save Harlem. Even Captain America: The First Avenger featured the Red Skull as an ultimate villain for Cap to square off against. Ever since Iron Man 2, however, the third act of almost every Marvel movie has become a mess of CGI-crafted aerial warfare. It is as if uber-producer and mastermind Kevin Feige is not happy unless there are forty or so things flying around being destroyed at any given time. This inevitable, over-the-top, drawn-out, and cliched climax is a foregone conclusion from the similarly heavy-handed opening fight scene in Avengers: Age of Ultron (no, I will not call it A: AoU!!). And from that first scene, the film slowly drained my excitement for the whole endeavor.

The movie begins where the Marvel cinematic universe left off after Captain America: The Winter Solider. S.H.I.E.L.D. is in ruins, Hydra is on the run, and the Avengers are on the attack. They have been scouring the globe for Loki's scepter, missing since the end of the first Avengers movie (why was it missing again?). It has been used by Baron Von Strucker, a Hydra mad-scientist/general, to create new mutant-like, enhanced humans (I have to say "mutant-like" because Marvel has licensed the rights to the word "mutant" to Fox for the X-Men franchise and are legally prohibited from having "mutants" in their own universe). The Avengers shut down Hydra and retrieve the scepter.

Once back at Avengers tower in New York, Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner decide to use the scepter to create a super-powered artificial intelligence which they can empower to defend the world against any foes who would attack us. These are the same guys who were super-indignant that S.H.I.E.L.D. was using the cosmic cube to create weapons in the last Avengers movie - how quickly they forget. Of course, their experiment works and Ultron is born. Ultimately, Ultron immediately decides that the best way to save the world is to destroy the Avengers. This is almost his first thought. I mean, from the instant he is created, he has decided to be EEEEEE-VILLLLL and that destroying the Avengers is priority one.

James Spader voices Ultron and I must give credit here. He is terrific in the role. Spader's voice and cadence are totally his own, almost Christopher Walken-esque. He is so good as Ultron, and yet, as usual with Marvel movies, he is given so very little to do other than immediately plot the world's destruction. With a movie so jam-packed of heroes, supporting characters, new heroes, new villains, old heroes from former movies, and the token Stan Lee cameo, there just isn't room to develop the villain or give Spader any reason to do what he does. And the fact that his character can duplicate his consciousness and upload himself all over the place just means more and more and more CGI robots. All the time. All over the place.

The first Avengers was fun. It took some time to assemble the team and allowed the characters to bounce around a bit before grudgingly working together to save the planet. In this movie, they are all together from the first scene and yet the film feels slower, more bloated. The introduction of another Frankenstein-monster/android superhero late in the movie feels like that one extra slice of pie that you thought you wanted but just didn't need. Too much. And the twins, the "mutant-like" characters introduced in the first scene, not only change allegiance two thirds of the way through the film, they suffer a tragedy that the audience is supposed to care about. We JUST met them. And they were dicks for half the movie.

Writer-directer Joss Wheden fills the film with his usual great dialogue and snappy one-liners. Robert Downey, Jr. continues to ooze charm as the smarmy billionaire he is in real life. Chris Evans' Captain America is righteous leadership personified and the Hulk, Hawkeye, and Black Widow are all given a bit more development than in previous installments. But at the cost of the story. Thor? What about Thor? Don't worry about him. He disappears for a third of the movie to swim in a mystical pool which reveals to him...nevermind. Thor is in this movie as well.

It's not all Whedon's fault. There is a lot to do in an Avengers movie. Everyone needs their due. Imagine if there were six or seven James Bonds in each James Bond movie and you needed to give them each a few scenes to develop, shine, struggle, and overcome. Come to think of it, perhaps that isn't a terrible idea! No. No, it is a terrible idea.

What works:

Spader's performance as Ultron is ridiculously entertaining.

Whedon's dialogue, Robert Downey, Jr.'s delivery, and Ruffalo's Hulk.

What doesn't:

Too many characters, too many Easter eggs (did you catch the Wakanda reference?! No? OK, so maybe you aren't a geek. How did you know about LOTR:ROTK then?)

CGI, CGI, CGI

Brass Tacks: The movie is, for better or worse, a cinematic comic book. It requires previous knowledge of almost every character, an interest in the new characters that are introduced, a severe suspension of disbelief, and the interest in picking up the next issue before you even open this one. B-

I really didn't think that this could be done. Tons of narratives have made use of the interwoven plot lines of disparate characters who don't meet onscreen until late in the movie. Many independent films feature a unique blend of various genres. But never have I seen a movie that I both loved, and would also describe as a thriller/romantic comedy. And not just "thriller", but Hitchcock-esque psychological angst. And not just "romantic comedy", but hilarious sexual tension that hasn't been pulled off with such aplomb since 'Swingers'.

The title character is an aging Wisconsin farmer (veteran character actor John Ashton) who we learn in the opening shot (and the movie poster) is responsible for a man's death (so no spoiler alert needed here), and the ensuing cover up. Being a congenial fellow in a small Midwestern town, he is not an official suspect in the victim's disappearance. But he is being harassed by the victim's roughneck brother, played with intensifying menace by Ronnie Gene Blevins. In a separate story line, we meet Ben (Alex Moffat, in his feature debut), a hipster animator living and working in Chicago. Sparks fly with the arrival of a new co-worker, New York transplant Kate (a stellar Jenna Lyng). The "are-they-or-aren't-they-just-friends" couple make a road trip up north to visit Uncle John, who we learn raised Ben as a child. John and Ben clearly care for one another, but something is amiss as Ben learn's of the town's recent news, and John is clearly on edge. The filmmakers do a stellar job of keeping the tension in check during a climactic confrontation.

That's it. That's the plot of Uncle John. Thin in the most perfect way. Because what it lacks in crazy twists, it more than makes up for as a compelling study in conflicting themes. The brooding scenes of John trying to evade suspicion in his small rural corner of the world are juxtaposed with the flirty and witty banter of the colleagues in the big city. The comic relief is necessary to keep the main story from getting too dark (it evoked 'Fargo' comparisons several times), and the small cast here just nails it. Ashton is incredibly believable as your average Joe. His scenes did less to convince me that good guys can commit dirty deeds, and more to elicit compassion for him. How difficult must it be to carry around such a dark secret? And what was it that could have driven such a nice guy to this? The answer is more inferred than explicit, and I'm a fan of films asking the audience to draw their own conclusions. It is no wonder that this often surreal movie with violent undertones has drawn kudos from David Lynch.

The film premiered at SXSW in March, and has been making the festival circuit since, including an opening night slot at the Wisconsin Film Festival two weeks ago. Premiere billing at the WIFF was fitting as producer and co-screenwriter Erik Crary is a graduate of UW-Madison and was born in Lodi, Wisconsin, where much of the movie was actually shot. Crary shares screenwriting credits with director Steven Piet in his feature debut. Next up is the Midwest Independent Film Festival in Chicago on May 5. If you have the opportunity to catch this one at a spring film festival, do so. It's a movie that has stuck with me in the days since seeing it, and I look forward to a repeat viewing.